GR 171609; (August, 2007) (Digest)
G.R. No. 171609 ; August 17, 2007
DR. JUANITO RUBIO, Petitioner, vs. THE HONORABLE OMBUDSMAN, HONORABLE SANDIGANBAYAN and BAYANI MIRA, Respondents.
FACTS
The Lung Center of the Philippines (LCP), with Dr. Juanito Rubio as its Executive Director, conducted a public bidding for its security service contract. Merit Protection Investigation Agency submitted the lowest bid at ₱12,000 per guard per month. The Bids and Awards Committee (BAC) initially recommended awarding the contract to Merit. However, petitioner Rubio noted that Merit’s bid was below the standard rate set by the Philippine Association of Detective and Protective Agency Operators (PADPAO) and that the incumbent agency, Starforce, was providing services at an even lower rate of ₱11,530. The BAC subsequently issued a new resolution awarding the contract to another bidder, but this award was not finalized. The LCP instead retained Starforce and later, upon Starforce’s request and following a Management Committee decision, adjusted the contract rate to ₱14,000 per guard retroactively for a seven-month period.
Bayani Mira of Merit filed a complaint with the Ombudsman, alleging that Rubio violated Section 3(e) of R.A. No. 3019 by causing undue injury to the government and giving unwarranted benefit to Starforce through manifest partiality and evident bad faith, as Starforce’s adjusted rate was higher than Merit’s winning bid. The Ombudsman found probable cause and filed an Information against Rubio before the Sandiganbayan.
ISSUE
Whether the Office of the Ombudsman committed grave abuse of discretion in finding probable cause to charge Dr. Juanito Rubio with violation of Section 3(e) of R.A. No. 3019 .
RULING
Yes, the Ombudsman committed grave abuse of discretion. The Supreme Court granted the petition and set aside the Ombudsman’s resolution. The legal logic centers on the absence of the essential elements for a violation of Section 3(e) of R.A. No. 3019 , which requires proof of manifest partiality, evident bad faith, or gross inexcusable negligence causing undue injury or giving unwarranted benefit.
The Court found no evidence of bad faith or partiality on Rubio’s part. His actions were based on valid concerns: ensuring compliance with the PADPAO standard rates, which are designed to align with minimum wage and other labor laws, and considering the government’s interest in the incumbent agency’s lower existing rate. Crucially, the decision to retain Starforce and later adjust its rate was not a unilateral act by Rubio. The retention was based on a BAC resolution, and the rate adjustment was a collegial decision of the LCP Management Committee, which acted to rectify past non-compliance with standard rates. Rubio merely implemented these collective decisions. Therefore, the element of causing undue injury or unwarranted benefit through corrupt motives was not established. The finding of probable cause lacked factual and legal basis, constituting grave abuse of discretion warranting judicial correction. The Sandiganbayan was ordered to dismiss the criminal case.